dismissed EB-1A Case: Culinary Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6501485 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chef, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, and subsequently affirmed his 
decision on motion , concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates current employment as a chef forl I Hospital in~I --~ 
California. Because the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets seven criteria. After reviewing all 
of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner indicates that he initially met this criterion based on an "A ward for Excellence" from 
Restaurant, a "Certificate of A ward" froml l a "Certificate of 
Participation" from~-------~ and a "Certificate of Appreciation" from I I I I Restaurant. On appeal, the Petitioner also claims eligibility based on a "Certificate of 
Appreciation" from I !Restaurant and a "Certificate of Participation" from I I 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
As it relates to his initial claims, although the Petitioner provided certificates, he did not submit 
supporting evidence demonstrating their national or international recognition for excellence in the 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
2 
field. Here, the petitioner did not establish the significance of the certificates in the overall field 
beyond the restaurants and establishments that issued them. 
Similarly, regarding his "Certificate of Appreciation" froml I Restaurant, he provides screenshots 
from r::::::lrestaurant.com promoting itself However, none of the screenshots mention the 
"Certificate of Appreciation," nor do they demonstrate that the restaurant's certificate is nationally or 
internationally recognized as a prize or award for excellence in the field. Moreover, although the 
Petitioner submits his own statement asserting to eligibility and criteria, he did not present 
independent, objective evidence to corroborate his claims. Further, while the Petitioner asserts that 
the "Excellence A ward winners are brands that meet high benchmark standards within their respective 
product categories," the record does not reflect he received an "Excellence Award" rather than a 
"Certificate of Appreciation." Regardless, the Petitioner did not show that either the "Certificate of 
Adpreciayon" or "Excellence Award" is nationally or internationally for excellence in the field outside 
o Restaurant. 
In addition, as it pertains to the "Certificate of Participation" from.__ _______ ___. the record 
reflects that the Petitioner received the certificate in December 2019, approximately a year after he 
filed his petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this certificate qualifies for 
eligibility at initial filing of the petition. Nonetheless, while the Petitioner submits screenshots from 
Wikipedia regarding! I they make no mention of the "Certificate of 
Participation," nor do they show that the participation certificate is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field, he did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that he "submitted several documentary evidences that indicates [sic] his 
membership and involvement in the numerous organization/associations [sic]." Moreover, the 
Petitioner claims that "[t]he Director erred in stating that there is no evidence that show [sic] that 
association requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field." However, the Petitioner does not indicate the documentation, nor 
does he specifically identify how the Director erroneously interpreted law or statement of fact. Instead, 
the Petitioner makes a broad, unsupported assertion. 
froml I in the Philippines; a letter fro restaurant administrator, who 
Notwithstanding the above, the record reflects th~ the Petition~ snbmird a "Certificate ofTraiillllg" 
verified the Petitioner's employment witH l l andl l 
and a recommendation letter from.__ ______ ~ In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner 
must show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or 
3 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is 
sought. 3 Here, the evidence relates to the Petitioner's employment with various restaurants rather than 
memberships with associations. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that outstanding 
achievements are an essential condition for membership, nor did he provide supporting 
documentation, such as the bylaws or other membership requirements. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
did not establish that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements 
for membership. 4 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion for the first time on appeal. He submits an article 
from the University of Urdaneta City Journal and a letter froitj I author of the article. 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 5 
At the outset, the Petitioner did not include the date of the article. The inclusion of the title, date, and 
author of the material is not opt~ma) hut r regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, althougl indicated that the University of Urdaneta City 
Journal is a publication of the university, she did not provide information regarding the status of the 
journal. Moreover, the Petitioner did not present documentation establishing the professional or major 
trade or major medium standing of the publication. 6 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his recognition certificates and recommendation letters reflect his 
eligibility for this criterion. In order to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner 
must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6-7. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
4 
significance in the field. 7 For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely 
implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided a "Certificate of Recognition" froml I 
Restaurant for "serving scrumptious foods and rendering exemplary; Culinary Services to I I L" In addition, he submitted a "Certificate of Recognition" from .... l ______ ~--==------'· 
I lfor "giving his excellent performance and in sharing his invaluable insights and expertise in 
Culinary Industry in the conduct of National Nutrition Month." On appeal, he presents a "Certificate 
of Recognition" from I ~ for "his exemplary performance as Resource Speaker on 
'Quantitative & Qualitative [R ]esearch in Case Restaurant,"' and a "Certificate of Attendance" for 
~----------' Association for his "active participation in celebrating International Chefs 
Day." Although the certificates show that the entities recognized his service, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how he made original contributions of major significance in the overall field. 8 While the 
establishments acknowledged the Petitioner's participation, he did not establish how his involvement 
constituted contributions in the field in a significant, major manner. 
Furthermore, the record contains recommendation letters praising the Petitioner for his talents and 
abilities. For instance, the Petitioner's "excellent skills and strategies and excellent menu are still 
being followed today [ atl ~" '---------~' and the Petitioner "is a wonderful 
chef providing us with meals that are delicious and creative, along with being healthy" l I LJ_ 9 However, the letters do not establish how the Petitioner's skills, strategies, and menus are 
viewed by the field as original contributions of major significance in the field. The letters, for instance, 
do not explain how the Petitioner has significantly impacted the field in a major way consistent with 
this regulatory criterion. Moreover, having a diverse, unique, or special skill set is not a contribution 
of major significance in-and-of-itself Further, the record must be supported by evidence that the 
Petitioner has already used those skills and talents to influence the field at a significant level, which 
he has not shown. In addition, the letters do not demonstrate how the Petitioner's talents and skills 
have been a major influence in the overall field beyond the restaurants in which he worked or the 
people he encountered. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying his original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence his culinary work has had on the overall field. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. 10 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
9 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 11 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submits a letter froml I claiming that he earned 1,600 Euros per month 
in 2007 atl I Restaurant in Spain, and the Petitioner earned 1,800 Euros per month in 2007 at the 
same restaurant. 12 In addition, he offers a screenshot from averagesalarysurvey.com reflecting that 
the average gross yearly salary in Spain for a cook in 2019 is 24,950 Euros. In order to meet this 
criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high relative to the 
compensation paid to others working in the field. 13 
Although he submitted a letter froml I "to the best of [his] recollection," the Petitioner did 
not provide any supporting data regardinr his earnings, such as paystubs, income tax returns, or other 
income documentation. Moreover, while I refers to 2007 earnings, the Petitioner provides 
2019 wage data. Regardless, based on the Petitioner's comparative information, his earnings were 
lower than the average wages of cooks in Spain. Furthermore, the comparison of average wages does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner commanded a high salary in relation to other chefs. The Petitioner, 
for example, did not compare his salary to the high wages of chefs. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. o_f Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) 
(finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the 
field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary 
versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing 
salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria relating to awards, memberships, published 
material, original contributions, and high salary. Although he claims eligibility for two additional 
criteria, relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the 
11 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff din pait 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
12 In his previous motion before the Director, the Petitioner submitted paystubs reflecting earnings after he filed his petition. 
However, eligibility must be established at the time of the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l ). 
13 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
6 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues. 14 
Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, 
concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and 
recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has cooked in various restaurants, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
14 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
7